WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

TDS Certificate at PB No. 80 to 81 ). 1.3.3 Further the JNU had submitted the reply to the letter issued by Ld. CIT( E) vide reply dated 28/04/2023 which has replied the queries raised by the revenue and provided the copy of agreement entered by them. (Please see PB No. 61 to 78 ) 1.3.4 Rent of the office premises: Allegation

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

TDS) Kota, is applicable in the case of the assess bank. Thereafter,\nthe AO discussing the legal position of Rule 2B of the Income Tax Rules and\nSection 10(5) of the IT Act, 1961, treated the assessee bank to be an assessee in\ndefault within the meaning of section 201 of the IT Act, 1961 and raised a total

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS u/s. 194C of the act\nwerereceived as contract receipts for removal of solid waste and the same was\nconsidered as violative of provision of section 2(15) of the Act. The second part of\nthe notice was that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,68,932/- to the\nperson covered

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

292 (SC), holding that "A firm is not a legal person, even though it has some attributes of personality. In Income-tax law, a firm is a unit of assessment, by special provisions, but it is not a full person. Since a contract of employment requires two distinct persons, viz., the employer and the employee, there cannot be a contract

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

292 of the Paper Book. Undisputedly, the amount of Rs.52.00 lacs was given to the assessee company in bank account and in this regard the document is at PB page 130. The said loan amount was subsequently repaid by the assessee company to Smt.Lekha Rajani alongwith charges and copy of the ledger account of Smt.Lekha Rajani has also been attached

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS on the payments. Despite that he took a chance because had the case not selected for scrutiny, he would have reduced tax liability. It cannot be the case of the assessee that there was any doubt about the inadmissibility of the claim. In view of the facts that out rightly inadmissible claims were made by the appellant

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him.

292/- was introduced by the two partners of the firm, Rs. 15,63,84,422/- by Shri Ram Gurjar & Rs. 3,14,81,870/- by Shri Vijay Kumar Jain. While assessment proceedings, the assessee, vide notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act requested to explain the source of such huge Introduction of capital by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] – wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton &\nGinning Factory (supra)] wherein it is observed that concealment of income and\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different\nmeanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to\nonly one of the two breaches mentioned under Section

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

TDS on interest payment of Rs. 15,97,572/- by ignoring the facts, settled legal position etc. Hence, the disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS of not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance tax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present case, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption that that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate the capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

TDS commission for (refer Cases). Pages 9 to 13 of paper book of AR. there is an Audit objection Thirdly, The Ld DR submitted that according to the CBDT Circular, No 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012,the assesee has to be disallowance u/s 37 and the AO accordingly made disallowance Rs.5,37,270/-. Further, the Ld DR submitted that

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

Tds, Staff security deposit, PF from branches) Total Rs.128.55 (Rs.8.21) Rs.120.34 4. The BRKGB has debited/ charged an amount of Rs.63,09,98,000/- as other provisions to the profit and loss account (Para 42 of P & L ITR). The summary of the same is as under:- S Particulars Amount Remarks No 1. Income tax paid for earlier years Rs.7

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

292 ITR 209 (SC) has held\nthat a fortiori, clarificatory circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct\nTaxes may also be taken into consideration for the purpose of construction\nof the statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State\nIndustrial Dev. Corporation Ltd., 259 ITR 51 (SC) has also held that\nFinance Minister's speech before